9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up for hearing with the consent of both the sides, early hearing application is infructuous and accordingly is rejected. 3. The learned counsel has filed arguments notes. Since we find that the notes cover the arguments placed before us in detail it would be appropriate to reproduce the same in the order rather than dictate that portion of the submissions. Accordingly argument notes are reproduced below: The question involved in this appeal is whether there is lack of supervision on the part of the appellant as CHA over the work of the authorized G Card holder who transacted the business in Cochin Custom House. This is the only charge on which the Commissioner has ordered revocation of CHA Licence and forfeiture of the part of the deposit amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The charge is quite vague. The case against the appellant related to forgery of customs documents by the G card holder - Vipin Kumar- of the appellant CHA during the course of clearing an import consignment. Signature of the CHA on the check list & Bill of Entry were forged by the G card Holder. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments needed for clearance. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that CHA had any knowledge or intimation regarding the commission of the offence by his employee G Card Holder at any stage of clearance. The following observation of the Commissioner in para 19 of his order revoking the licence of the CHA reveal his total bias and non-application of mind. His observation in the order issued by him are quoted below:- ''I find that Sri. Anil Kumar proprietor himself had admitted in his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act 1962 dated 25.5.2012 and 8.10.2012 that he had not taken the precaution of meeting the importer personally to verify the genuinely and that he allowed the documents for import be handled by his employee Vipin Kumar on behalf of his firm". A reading of the statements referred to above by the Commissioner - copies available in pages 38 to 40 of the Paper Book would clearly show that the above observation of the Commissioner are wrong and without any basis as Anil Kumar, the CHA had never made any such statements in his deposition. He had only stated that the Bill of Entry was han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the appellant may file appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax within 60 days from the communication. In fact as per the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Chief Commissioner. In the meanwhile in July 2013 a Corrigendum was issued by the Commissioner asking the appellant to file an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. This itself shows the hastiness of the Commissioner in passing the order and the casual manner of passing the order for him. It took more than a month to send the Corrigendum without date. This itself shows the mala fide intention of the commissioner somehow to revoke the licence of the appellant. Thus the charge against the CHA -lack of supervision over the work of his employee has absolutely no relevance. Appellant CHA had no occasion to know about the clearance of goods and forging of documents and collecting service charges, customs duty etc by the G Card Holder, the question of any supervision of the work of the employee done outside the office does not arose. The CHA firm had not filed any documents for clearance. The whole work of clearance was solely that of the G Card Holder without the knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. Vs. Commissioner C. Ex. Mumbai [2012 (280) E.L.T 5354 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 4. Learned AR on the other hand submits that according to Regulation 19(8), a custom house agent is required to exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of any employee in the transaction of business as CHA and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees with regard to their employment. She draws our attention to the statement recorded from the appellant by the customs authorities on 25.09.2012 and submits that the statement itself is irrelevant. In the statement the appellant had voluntarily stated that the bill of entry was filed by Vipin Kumar. According to the appellant's statement, appellant has 12 branches all over India and in Cochin itself he has 6 members of staff working in his office. How he could identify only Vipin Kumar as the culprit is a question which is not coming out from the statement. Learned counsel in his rejoinder explained that he had come to know that a case has been registered and Vipin Kumar was involved. However there is no supporting evidence whatsoever in the statement of the appellant and no reason has been given how he cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be handled by his employee Vipin Kumar was not based on any facts. He also submits that even though Shri Vipin Kumar passed away before proceedings were culminated against the appellant, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever about his death in the impugned order. He also submits that every statement which was submitted to him with the show-cause notice for supply of goods running from page 44 to 69 were provided at the time of enquiry or at the time of adjudication of persons for revocation. He also submitted that the CHA cannot be responsible for activities done by the employee outside the office and without the knowledge of the CHA. He also submitted that the Commissioners conclusion regarding vicarious responsibility is also not applicable and in this case CHA has been cheated by his employee who has cheated the customs officials also. The employee has masqueraded as CHA and cheated all concerned including customs. Further he pleaded that the CHA is an engineering graduate and had an unblemished carrier as a CHA for the past 26 years and there are no instances of any such activity noticed on his part till now. Finally he submits that this affects the employment of the CHA a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into account by the Commissioner or in the earlier proceedings. Nevertheless we consider that this is another aspect which also goes against the conduct of CHA. According to Regulation 13 the CHA is required to verify correctness of the IE code No. Therefore the claim of the appellant that he did not know the importer and he did not know that the bill of entry had been filed by Vipin Kumar and he had no contact with the importer also go against him rather than in his favour. We make it clear that this is not the point which has gone into reconsideration to the conclusion we have reached. We also find that decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Worldwide Cargo Movers is very relevant since that decision was considering the revocation of licence for violation of Regulation 19(8) as is the case here. In para 28, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: In our view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in interfering with the decision of a domestic authority. In a departmental proceeding one has to see whether the principles of natural justice are followed and the findings are justified from material on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
